Analysis Of Strategies for Memorizing the Qur’an Using Grounded Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to describe the factors inhibiting and encouraging students in memorizing the Qur'an, and to describe learning at the Nurul Qurani Jombor Islamic boarding school, Semarang Regency. The informants for this research were the administrators and students of the Nurul Qurani Islamic Boarding School. This research is qualitative research using observation, interview and documentation data collection techniques. Checking the validity of the data uses triangulation of sources and methods. Data analysis uses grounded theory with stages of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The results of this research are: (1) discipline, habituation and sanctions are the boarding school's strategies so that students obey the rules and are responsible for their obligations as memorizers of the Qur'an (2) the program is implemented as an effort to encourage students to memorize the Qur'an . (3) students are given the freedom to manage their time in memorizing the Qur'an by creating mandatory hours and free hours. (4) in facing developments over time, the boarding school adapts to the needs of the students. Such as liberating the use of cellphones during free hours while still complying with the boarding school regulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".